You guys talk about all the corruption and mismanagement in the government. Let me tell you, incompetence runs rampant in the way the military is run, and the media can't give you a view anywhere near as clear as the one I have here on the inside.

Military units are arranged like this:

Smallest group is a Squad.
4 Squads = 1 Platoon
4 Platoons = 1 Company
3 to 4 Companies = 1 Battalion
2 to 4 Battalions = 1 Brigade

Now that you have that basic breakdown, let me tell you this:

They are deploying entire Battalions to fill missions that would be overstaffed with 1 Company. My Company was deployed to fill a mission that didn't even require a full squad. The government is wasting unnecessary millions on bringing people over here and paying us tax-free benefits when they could be sending only the people that are actually needed and using the rest of that money to help the people in New Orleans and solving any number of other problems.

---
It was such a waste of everyone’s time and money that even the Tokyo stadium’s rape robots apologized– something they were programmed specifically never to do.

More troops = more support = more money for Halliburton.

That's my theory, anyway.

*fashions hat from aluminium foil*

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

quote:

---

4 Squads = 1 Platoon
4 Platoons = 1 Company
3 to 4 Companies = 1 Battalion
2 to 4 Battalions = 1 Brigade

---

Now convert 3 Brigades to Platoons. I'll come by and check your answers.

---
all the wrong things for all the right reasons

quote:

---

quote:

---

4 Squads = 1 Platoon
4 Platoons = 1 Company
3 to 4 Companies = 1 Battalion
2 to 4 Battalions = 1 Brigade

---

Now convert 3 Brigades to Platoons. I'll come by and check your answers.

---

Tht's anywhere from 36-64 platoons.

---
It was such a waste of everyone’s time and money that even the Tokyo stadium’s rape robots apologized– something they were programmed specifically never to do.

Today's Miami Herald:

[i]...in a recent Pew poll, 42 percent agreed that ''humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,'' while 48 percent believe that ``humans and other living things have evolved over time.''

Even though it used different wording, a Gallup Poll last year found virtually the same split: 45 percent agreed that ''God created human beings pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,'' while 51 percent thought that ''humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.'' Gallup first asked that question in 1982 and found 44 percent choosing the creationist option and 47 percent endorsing evolution.[/i]

And from the Pew Forum:

These differences of opinion carry over into politics as well (see detailed tables on pp. 22-23). Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans believe that living things have always existed in their present form, while just 11% say that evolution occurred through natural processes. Among liberal Democrats, by contrast, only 29% hold the creationist position, while a plurality (44%) accepts the natural selection theory of evolution.

Conclusion: Democrats as a group are smarter than Republicans, but that's still not saying much.

---
What others say about boorite!

Dick Cheney has existed in his present form since the beginning of time.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

quote:

---

Dick Cheney has existed in his present form since the beginning of time.

---

And Bush never developed from less advanced forms of life.

---
What others say about boorite!

Happy Columbus Day from president Chavez.

---
What others say about boorite!

15 people celebrate Columbus Day by playing dead on Denver parade route.

Website devoted entirely to wishing you a Happy Columbus Day.

Happy Day of Indigenous Resistance.

---
What others say about boorite!

Peter Falk had no idea what a shitstorm he was stirring up with that role.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

This was inspired by Bush's comment he made the other day, and because I had a free afternoon today and wanted to practice me photoshoppin. Enjoy.

[IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y157/Electric_Monkey/comedy/boobbrothers.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.kare11.com/news/cooler_article.aspx?storyid=110143
http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id=0613b3dc-299d-4f18-bef1-c39c970cebff
"...the Mile High City gets a new meaning..."

---
all the wrong things for all the right reasons

"...people don't realize all that money goes to organized crime."

What a load of fucking shit. Nearly every bit of weed I have ever smoked was backyard-grown. Yes, organised crime runs a lot of the harder drugs (though not even all of those) but generally speaking (in Oz anyway) weed is grown by regular everyday people who sell it to friends. You can't do that with coca leaf or opium poppies.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

I agree, DexX. But hey, it passed!

---
all the wrong things for all the right reasons

quote:

---

Conclusion: Democrats as a group are smarter than Republicans, but that's still not saying much.

---

*ahem* so in otherwords, believing in creationism is stupid?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. Problem is, a statement like this indicates that it's not just your opinion, but rather a fact.

Evolution is a more scientific belief, but, being a theory, still requires some amount of faith. I certainly wouldn't argue that creationism is a valid theory to be taught in schools, but I would say that those who agree with it are not idiots.

Not flaming you, just asking that you choose your words with a little more thought.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

The question that needs to be asked is this: Do schools teach kids science or religious dogma? Creationism is not science, but faith. Evolution is science, not faith.

Science and faith are opposites. Faith says "I know this is true, but what evidence is there to support it?" Science says "We have this evidence, but what conclusion can we draw from it?"

Creationism and "intelligent design theory" have as much place in secular schools as memorising the Qur'an.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

the real question is that if, using boorites numbers, 45% believe in creationism and yet it ISN'T taught in school, how much of a democracy do we really live in?

in reality it takes faith to believe in either creationism or evolution. last i checked it was still called the theory of evolution. last i checked "science" still breaks down in the nanoseconds following the big bang

and for the record, i'm an atheist who believes 100% in evolution. but i'm also a populist who believes that more than my own opinion should be represented

---
what if nigger meant kite

the real question is that if, using boorites numbers, 45% believe in creationism and yet it ISN'T taught in school, how much of a democracy do we really live in?

---

Democracy is five wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Education in general is meant to pass along knowledge, not the faith-based opinions of a group of people, no matter how large. You teach a class on, for example, comparative religion, religious history, or creation myths, and the story of Genesis will fit in fine there. But not in science class, where what's being taught is to make testable conclusions from observations ...

1) Creationism requires the extra assumption that a creator exists. This is, as far as we know, neither provable nor unprovable, so any belief, pro or con, as well as any belief in the nature of such a creator, is simply a matter of faith. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That theory is simply what is believed to be the best possible explanation of the observed phenomena, and does not rely on the crutch of faith, as does crationism.

2) Yes, it is a "theory." Parts of what is believed to be true may at some point be proven to be wrong, and amended. But the evolutionary process has been observed in some species, and the biggest argument folks seem to be able to muster against evolution is that its supposed results seem to be of astronomically low probability. This is true, but if you roll a trillion dice, the resulting number will also be incredibly improbable, and yet it will have happened. Plus, the creation/evolution of a creator would also have to have been very low probability, no?

Opinions are not the domain of science class. There is a place for them in our schools, but generally not there. Discuss it in history class. Write about it in english calass. But don't teach it in science class, any more than you would tell your math class that pi is equal to 3.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

*applause* Bravo. Schools should teach either facts, or the facts as close as we can work out with current knowledge. Facts are not changed by popular opinion.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

I never argued that creationism should be taught in schools, heh.

Evolution is a strongly supported theory, yes. We've viewed it at play in modern species, actually watching it happen over time. However, we have not seen entirely new species develop out of old ones. We have evidence that it happens, mainly through fossil records.

It's more scientific, but still leaves questions that are filled in, for the faith-based community, with belief. The big bang begs the question "where did the matter that became the universe come from in the first place?" and evolution asks "what pulled the little protiens and other components together, sparked the energy and created life?". Granted, these questions have been speculated on by scientists, but these are just guesses.

Whatever the case, I'm an "guided evolution" type of guy.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

that sounds pretty elitist. democracy is many things, not just the majority deciding how to shaft the minority, requiring the helping hand and pat on the head by people who think they know what's for the best.

guess what? we all think we know what's best. but we all go to the polls and none of us matter more than the next. it's the majority opinion that gets enacted, which is 1000 times better than some well-meaning but naive erudites who think they know what's best for mankind

since there is no "knowledge" on how the universe came to be, what caused the big bang let's say, you present the prevailing theories. creationism is one of those theories. in science these are called "hypotheses". they definitely have a part in education

and in 500 years evolution might as well. the point is, we're not as bright as we think we are. we know very little about the universe as a whole, and to present one theory and not another, is, well, unscientific. think about it. everything comes from something. point to anything in the room you're in right now and it comes from something. to suddenly turn a blind eye to this fact when it comes to creationism because of some people's narrow view of what science is, is likewise narrowminded

pure science doesn't teach you to draw a conclusion, it teaches you to report correlations. it teaches applying math and particularly probability to your results

the point is it teaches that many different factors influence your results. science is inclusive. it includes everything, with a completely open mind, narrowing its vision through the rigors of the scientific method.

to suddenly ignore this inclusiveness when it comes to a hypothesis that has not been scientifically disproved is anti-science. it's what DexX describes - fitting the results to your view of the world, not looking at all the facts and looking for correlations

faith is just another word for belief. applying probability again, let's say it's a 100% belief. i have 100% belief in evolution. i have faith in it. there's nothing wrong with "faith". there's something wrong with blind faith, where all evidence is discounted so as not to interfere with your preconceptions and desired beliefs of how the world is

so "the crutch of faith" you mention can apply equally to evolutionists who don't want creationism taught in school as it does to creationists that don't want evolution taught in school. they're the two prevailing theories. teach them both, giving an honest analysis of both (which in my opinion will make creationism look pretty bad). that's science

a debate worthy of a science class

Opinions are not the domain of science class. There is a place for them in our schools, but generally not there.

---

again, this is absolutely wrong. opinions are the first step of the scientific method. it's called "hypothesis". evolution and creationism are the two hypotheses of life, the universe, and everything. they're both in the realm of science

---
what if nigger meant kite

....

POLITICS!

*runs

---
I dumb :D

that sounds pretty elitist. democracy is many things, not just the majority deciding how to shaft the minority, requiring the helping hand and pat on the head by people who think they know what's for the best.

guess what? we all think we know what's best. but we all go to the polls and none of us matter more than the next. it's the majority opinion that gets enacted, which is 1000 times better than some well-meaning but naive erudites who think they know what's best for mankind

---

Look at that Bush bozo and say that again with anything resembling a straight face.

And don't think you'll get away with twisting my words. I wasn't talking about the rule of a minority. I was talking about protecting the minority from having their rights trampled by the majority.

since there is no "knowledge" on how the universe came to be, what caused the big bang let's say, you present the prevailing theories. creationism is one of those theories. in science these are called "hypotheses". they definitely have a part in education

---

Cosmology has nothing to do with biology. The creation/evolution debate isn't about the origin of the universe, it's about the origin of life as we know it. The big bang, "let there be light," the flying spaghetti monster, and anything that happened prior to the formation of the earth are
irrelevast to this particular debate.

and in 500 years evolution might as well. the point is, we're not as bright as we think we are. we know very little about the universe as a whole, and to present one theory and not another, is, well, unscientific. think about it. everything comes from something. point to anything in the room you're in right now and it comes from something. to suddenly turn a blind eye to this fact when it comes to creationism because of some people's narrow view of what science is, is likewise narrowminded

---

Except there is plenty of observed evidence to support the formation of the evolution hypothesis. Unless you're going Bomb #20 on me and denying that anything of meaning can be extracted from any observation, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation.

pure science doesn't teach you to draw a conclusion, it teaches you to report correlations. it teaches applying math and particularly probability to your results

the point is it teaches that many different factors influence your results. science is inclusive. it includes everything, with a completely open mind, narrowing its vision through the rigors of the scientific method.

---

... Which has provided scads of evidence in support of something resembling our current evolutionary theory.

You're confusing the evolutionists with the creationists; they are the ones who have to contort reality to fit into their preconceived notions. Without Genesis being accepted as a given, their explanations are very hard to swallow.

faith is just another word for belief.

---

Don't toy with my words. I'm using "faith" as belief without a solid foundation of supporting evidence.

... if they didn't have a planetful of observations to support their theory.

You mean, who don't want creationism taught as something on equal scientific footing. I don't want Spaghettimonsterism taught in science class. Should we teach every postulate, no matter how crackpot?

Once again, what evidence supports the teaching of creationism in science class, other than that a group of religious fanatics are convinced it happened that way?

And don't tell me I'm being prejudiced by calling them religious fanatics. What supporting evidence do they really have?

a debate worthy of a science class

---

What debate? I'm just preemptively shooting down a fallacious argument.

A hypothesis needs to pass some degree of scientific muster before becoming a credible theory. Only one of those has.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

you mean the guy that was voted into office twice?

just your opinion. which counts, but not any more than the next guy's

my exact words were "democracy is many things, not just the majority deciding how to shaft the minority" which isn't twisting your words at all but a direct reply to a simplistic all-encompassing statement you made as to what democracy is

you look at evolution, you take a look at the whole theory, you look at creationism, you look at the whole theory. cosmogony is the crux of my entire argument, if you ignore it, you ignore the point i'm making

and in 500 years evolution might as well. the point is, we're not as bright as we think we are. we know very little about the universe as a whole, and to present one theory and not another, is, well, unscientific. think about it. everything comes from something. point to anything in the room you're in right now and it comes from something. to suddenly turn a blind eye to this fact when it comes to creationism because of some people's narrow view of what science is, is likewise narrowminded

---

Except there is plenty of observed evidence to support the formation of the evolution hypothesis

---

who said there wasn't? my point was that there's also little evidence that something comes from nothing, making creationism the pervue of science

You're confusing the evolutionists with the creationists;

---

no, i'm recognizing the human failing of pointing to the other guy and noting his faults, when in reality you share the same but are too self-invested to see it. this is the plight of many of the evolutionists who don't want creationism taught in schools

you don't have to be a christian or even religious to believe in creationism. many people i know have a belief in some kind of deity or higher power while not affiliating themself with any particular religion, some of them very much opposed to organized religion

faith is just another word for belief.

---

Don't toy with my words. I'm using "faith" as belief without a solid foundation of supporting evidence.

---

if i wanted to toy with your words, i'd rearrange the letters to spell out "mandingo is right". i'm pointing out that it takes as much "faith" to believe in a non-deist createed universe as it does to believe in creationism

... if they didn't have a planetful of observations to support their theory.

---

i don't care if they have a universe full. if they're repressing other viable,
and again, not scientifically disproven theories, they're practicing bad science

You mean, who don't want creationism taught as something on equal scientific footing. I don't want Spaghettimonsterism taught in science class. Should we teach every postulate, no matter how crackpot?

---

i already addressed this:

"teach them both, giving an honest analysis of both (which in my opinion will make creationism look pretty bad). that's science"

Once again, what evidence supports the teaching of creationism in science class, other than that a group of religious fanatics are convinced it happened that way?

---

since science has turned a blind eye to creationist theories, considering it the pervue of religion, not much. one however, is the birth of the universe and the fact that the conservation laws point to the fact that something can't come from nothing. recent theories about the "birth" of the universe abound about multi-dimensionality and oscillating universe states, a sort of celestial pendulum. the point is that science seems to be stumbling into creationism despite it's unscientific uninclusivity of considering those theories in the first place

of course you are, but i'm prejudice against people who don't want the main viable theories taught. imo, prejudice is natural in the company of strongly held opinions

short answer: something doesn't come from nothing

long answer, and i'll bold it to give it equal weight, you can't point to the lack of evidence a particular theory has when science has, very UNSCIENTIFICALLY, ignored the study of said theory. it's like christians (who you seem to use interchangeably with "creationists" though i take the wider view of "deists") asking what proof of evolution there is in the bible

a debate worthy of a science class

---

What debate? I'm just preemptively shooting down a fallacious argument.

---

what debate? this one:

"God does not play dice with the universe." -- Albert Einstein

only one of them has had the light of science shined on it despite science pointing over and over again to the fact that something doesn't come from nothing. it's a blindspot in the vision of otherwise bright people who don't recognize that science is a narrowing process, but in order to accurately narrow onto the correct answer, it must first be all inclusive

---
what if nigger meant kite

This is a wash in the creation debate. All of these are equally impossible:

[list=1][*]The universe has always existed
[*]At some point, the universe appeared out of nothing
[*]The creator of the universe has always existed
[*]At some point, the creator of the universe appeared out of nothing[/list]And yet supposedly, one of the above has managed to happen. Even if you have to expand the list to meta-levels (the creator of the creator of the creator...)

As far as I can tell, "something doesn't come from nothing" doesn't add support to either the creationist or the anti-creationist argument.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com